[Bug 1215103] New: Review Request: golang-github-digitalocean-godo - DigitalOcean Go API client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
Bug ID: 1215103 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-digitalocean-godo - DigitalOcean Go API client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchaloup@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-digitalocean-godo/go...
SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-digitalocean-godo/go...
Description: DigitalOcean Go API client
Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup
$ rpmlint /home/jchaloup/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-digitalocean-godo-0-0.1.git8dc1f54.fc20.src.rpm /home/jchaloup/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-digitalocean-godo-devel-0-0.1.git8dc1f54.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Koji: package depends on bz#1214913 and bz#1214934
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
Marek Skalický mskalick@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mskalick@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mskalick@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
--- Comment #1 from Marek Skalický mskalick@redhat.com --- It is not possible to build this package. Even if packages from required bugs are installed.
bz#1214913 and bz#1214934 does not provide 'golang(github.com/google/go-querystring/query)' and 'golang(github.com/tent/http-link-go)'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
--- Comment #2 from Marek Skalický mskalick@redhat.com --- Sorry, my mistake. It builds fine...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
Marek Skalický mskalick@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Marek Skalický mskalick@redhat.com --- Specfile conforms to current Go packaging draft [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go
SHOULD items: - Latest version is not packed
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215103
Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2015-07-08 04:31:54
--- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka jchaloup@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1215104 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla